In the U.S. Constitution, America’s Founding Fathers crafted the world’s preeminent governing document securing Liberty. Yet they also understood their work wasn’t perfect, and thus they created an avenue for amending it. Unfortunately, for most of the last century, the Left discarded the amendment process in favor of adopting what they call the “living constitution” – a malleable document that means whatever they want it to mean at the time they want to mean it.

Outgoing Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) says the time has come to rectify some of the wrongs done by calling for an Article V convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. That is different from a constitutional convention in which a new document would be written.

Article V of the document lays out the process for amendments: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

All 17 amendments enacted after the Bill of Rights were accomplished through the first of the two constitutional methods prescribed – two-thirds of both houses passing an amendment. There has never been a convention held upon application by the states.

But Coburn is aiming high. “I think [George] Mason was prophetic that we would devolve to where the federal government became too powerful, too big and too unwieldy,” he said. “That’s why he put Article V in.” There are specific things Coburn wants, too. “I think we ought to have a balanced budget amendment,” he asserted. “I think we ought to have term limits. I think we ought to put a chokehold on regulation and re-establish the powers of the Congress.”

The last item is of utmost concern given the imperial presidency of the last six years. As The Hill notes, “President Obama’s use of executive action to pursue an array of policy goals related to climate change, immigration and healthcare reform has precipitated what many conservatives are calling a constitutional crisis.”

It’s not just conservatives. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, a long-time Obama supporter, warned recently, “We are seeing the emergence of a different model of government, a model long-ago rejected by the framers.” Turley added that we have “a system that is in crisis.” In fact, he argued, “The president’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger the framers sought to avoid.”

Coburn knows a convention would never succeed if it becomes only a way to push for partisan changes. Lawrence Lessig, a liberal professor at Harvard Law School, supports a convention, though he agrees with Coburn that politicizing it would guarantee failure. Lessig says, “The legitimate constitutional questions that are being put on the table are questions about the balanced budget, the size of government … as well as the integrity of the electoral process. That’s the stuff the people on the left are talking about.”

All conservatives see a federal government that has completely disregarded the Constitution and Rule of Law, yet many see problems with calling an Article V convention. Amending the Constitution assumes, first of all, that the federal government would abide by those amendments when it has clearly not remained within current bounds. A convention also opens the door to undesirable changes (Democrat efforts to stifle free speech, for example) – but then again, so did starting a revolution. That said, any proposed amendments would still have to clear three-fourths of the states.

(As an alternative to Coburn’s proposal, Mark Alexander has suggested a Constitutional Confederation.)

In the words of George Washington, “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

Coburn’s idea has its merits, but our primary hope in restoring that truth is educating the American people about Essential Liberty and in electing representatives, including at the state level, who will honor their oath to “support and defend” the Constitution, and then to hold those government officials accountable.

As was the case at the dawn of American Liberty, we are but a small band of American Patriots facing an empire of statists, but we remain steadfast in our sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution.